2010 (3) TMI 1100 - SC - Indian Laws

Non-State Civil Service Officers impleadment application in the Delhi High Court for being impleaded as respondents in Writ Petition - cadre reviewing exercise with reference to the vacancy position as on 1st January 2004 - appellants to satisfy this Court about their locus to participate in the controversy at the stage when the matter was before the High Court - HELD THAT - In view of repeated and authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of this Court the approach made to the High Court for the first time by these appellants in respect of their service disputes over which C.A.T. Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction is not legally sustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court with great respect fell into an error by allowing the appellants to treat the High Court as a Court of first instance in respect of their service disputes for adjudication of which C.A.T. has been constituted. The grievances of the appellants in this appeal are that they were not made parties in proceedings before the Tribunal. But in the impleadment application filed before the High Court it was not averred by them that they were not aware of the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal. Rather from the averments made in the impleadment petition it appears that they were aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It was therefore open for them to approach the Tribunal with their grievances. Not having done so they cannot in view of the clear law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Chandra Kumar 1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT approach the High Court and treat it as the Court of first instance in respect of their grievances by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal . The C.A.T. also has the jurisdiction of Review under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987. So it cannot be said that the appellants were without any remedy. As the appellants cannot approach the High Court by treating it as a Court of first instance their Special Leave Petition before this Court is also incompetent and not maintainable. The principles laid down in the case of Chandra Kumar (supra) virtually embody a rule of law and in view of Article 141 of the Constitution the same is binding on the High Court. The High Court fell into an error by allowing the appellants to approach it in clear violation of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Chandra Kumar (supra).

Summary

Issues:
1. Locus standi of Non-State Civil Service Officers to participate in proceedings before High Court.
2. Interpretation of the law declared in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India regarding approaching High Court in service disputes.
3. Competency and maintainability of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Locus standi of Non-State Civil Service Officers
The Non-State Civil Service Officers (Non-SCS Officers) filed an impleadment application in the Delhi High Court to intervene in a writ petition. The High Court allowed them to participate in the proceedings by making submissions and filing affidavits. However, the Supreme Court questioned their locus standi as they were not parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) where the original applications were heard. The CAT had issued directions related to filling up posts and considering eligible officers. The High Court, on appeal, set aside the CAT's judgment, directing a cadre review. The Non-SCS Officers cited the Chandra Kumar case to support their participation, but the Supreme Court clarified that they cannot directly approach the High Court in service disputes falling under the CAT's jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the law in L. Chandra Kumar case
The Supreme Court emphasized that the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 227, and Article 32 respectively, is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Tribunals function as courts of first instance and are subject to judicial review by High Courts. Litigants cannot bypass the jurisdiction of tribunals and directly approach High Courts, except in cases challenging the legislation creating the specific tribunal. The Non-SCS Officers' attempt to treat the High Court as a court of first instance was deemed legally unsustainable based on the Chandra Kumar judgment, as the CAT had jurisdiction over their service disputes.

Issue 3: Competency and maintainability of the Special Leave Petition
The Supreme Court held that since the Non-SCS Officers could not approach the High Court as a court of first instance, their Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was also deemed incompetent and not maintainable. The principles established in the Chandra Kumar case were reiterated, emphasizing that High Courts must adhere to the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, with no costs awarded.

Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of respecting the jurisdiction of specialized tribunals like the CAT in service-related disputes and highlights the legal limitations on directly approaching High Courts in such matters.